# Catastrophic AI Risk

**URL:** https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/catastrophic-ai-risk/2172
**Category:** Unbounded
**Tags:** ai
**Created:** [April 16, 2026, 5:58pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/catastrophic-ai-risk/2172 "2026-04-16T17:58:04Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2026, 3:49am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/catastrophic-ai-risk/2172/5 "2026-04-17T03:49:33Z")

</div>

Caleb Biddulph [wrote](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5CfBDiQNg9upfipWk/only-law-can-prevent-extinction?commentId=8gpBux2xAz5qjoxna):

> I think it’s very clearly wrong according to standard English grammar rules, but I also think that Eliezer knows that and is using the comma to simulate a conversational speaking cadence. In this case, it’s a pause for effect

I don’t see how you conclude it’s intentional rule breaking when there are frequent errors (around one per 260 words). Here are the errors 13 comma errors, 5 semi-colon errors and 5 other grammar errors (excluding valid stylistic choices like some of the sentence fragments) in 5989 words according to Claude Opus 4.7:

> I read the piece carefully and noted the following. I limited the lists to errors that are not considered valid style choices in contemporary editing standards (so I excluded sentence fragments used for rhetorical effect, commas before “and” linking compound predicates, polysyndeton, “that” for people, and logical/British punctuation around quoted matter).
> 
> ## 1. Comma errors
> 
> 1. **Subject–verb separation:** “what that code does\*\*,\*\* is tweak hundreds of billions of inscrutable numbers” — the comma wrongly splits the noun-clause subject (“what that code does”) from its verb (“is”).
> 2. **Subject–verb separation:** “The thing about building vastly superhuman entities\*\*,\*\* is that you don’t necessarily get unlimited retries…”
> 3. **Subject–verb separation:** “But what they have already grasped and publicly agreed with\*\*,\*\* is enough to motivate policy.”
> 4. **Subject–verb separation:** “The utter extermination of humanity\*\*,\*\* would be bad!”
> 5. **Subject–verb separation:** “To impede one executive, one researcher, or one company\*\*,\*\* does not change where AI is heading.”
> 6. **Subject–verb separation:** “The sort of conditionally applicable force that could stop everyone from dying to superhuman AI\*\*,\*\* would have to be everywhere and reliable…”
> 7. **Subject–verb separation:** “That this sentiment is not universal among accelerationists\*\*,\*\* is seen immediately from the protestor in their replies.”
> 8. **Unwarranted comma inside a “so … that” construction:** “a danger so extreme\*\*,\*\* that belief in it might possibly be used to argue for unlawful force.”
> 9. **Unwarranted comma inside a “so … that” construction:** “It is so much a clear case for state-approved lawful force\*\*,\*\* that there would be little point in adding any other kind of force…”
> 10. **Unwarranted comma inside a “so … that” construction:** “…we are so terrified of someone’s possible first use of nuclear weapons\*\*,\*\* that we let them shatter a setup that protects all life on Earth.”
> 11. **Comma before a restrictive infinitive of purpose:** “it would take a tyrannical world dictatorship\*\*,\*\* to prevent every country from getting nuclear weapons…”
> 12. **Comma splice:** “The answer is that it doesn’t matter how certain you are\*\*,\*\* killing puppies doesn’t cure cancer.” (Two independent clauses joined by a comma only.)
> 13. **Comma before a “that”-content clause:** “And finally it did seem wiser to me\*\*,\*\* that all this matter be made very plain…”
> 
> ## 2. Semicolon errors
> 
> 1. “…often things that require intelligence\*\*;\*\* like breaking out of containment during testing, or talking a human into committing suicide.” — the semicolon is followed by a prepositional/participial phrase, not an independent clause. Should be a colon, em-dash, or comma.
> 2. “…he wouldn’t be running an AI company\*\*;\*\* so also with the founders of OpenAI and Anthropic.” — the segment after the semicolon is a verbless fragment, not an independent clause.
> 3. “Either it must be impossible for any cognitive system to exist that is advanced beyond a human brain\*\*;\*\* or the many never-challenged problems of controlling machine superintelligence must all prove to be easy.” — a semicolon interrupts the correlative “either … or” pair, and it precedes the coordinator “or” without the “items containing internal commas” rationale.
> 4. “…would have to be everywhere and reliable\*\*;\*\* uniform and universal.” — what follows the semicolon is a bare pair of predicate adjectives, not an independent clause. Should be a comma or dash.
> 5. “And now we have that precedent to show it can be done\*\*;\*\* not easily, not trivially, but it can be done.” — begins with sentence fragments (“not easily, not trivially”); a semicolon requires an independent clause on each side. An em-dash fits.
> 
> ## 3. Other objective grammar errors
> 
> 1. **“Nearby” used as a preposition:** “…a product might kill someone standing _nearby the customer_…” — “nearby” is an adjective/adverb, not a preposition. Should be “near the customer” (or “standing nearby, like…”).
> 2. **Pronoun–antecedent number disagreement:** “…buy chips from Nvidia instead, which would stay at full production and sell _their_ full production.” — “Nvidia” is singular; the pronoun should be “its.”
> 3. **Pronoun–antecedent number disagreement:** “Hitler read the messages himself, instead of having the professional diplomats explain _it_ to him.” — antecedent “messages” is plural; should be “them.”
> 4. **Pronoun–antecedent number disagreement:** “People don’t like unguessably long lists of possible violence-sources in their lives, for then they cannot predict _it_ and avoid _it_.” — both candidate antecedents (“lists,” “violence-sources”) are plural; should be “them.”
> 5. **Missing subject after “as”:** “…resulted in Hussein’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, _as then in fact provoked_ a massive international response.” — the relative/subordinate clause has no subject. Needs “which then in fact provoked…” (or “as _it_ then in fact provoked…”).
> 
> A few items I considered and did _not_ flag as objective errors because they are defensible stylistic choices today: the many commas before “and” joining compound predicates (rhythm); sentence fragments beginning with “Unless…,” “If quoted accurately.,” “Sam Altman too.”; “that” used for persons (“any madman that might…”); and punctuation placed outside closing quotation marks (logical/British style).

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/catastrophic-ai-risk/2172)._